Introduction to Social Informatics 5 1.2 Defining Social Informatics Since the deployment of the first commercial digital computers in the 1950s, their potential power to extend human and organizational capabilities has excited the imaginations of many people. Their potential has also evoked fears that use would lead to massive social problems, such as widespread unemployment. In the 1950s and 1960s, digi1al computers were relatively expensive (often costing hundreds of thousands of dollars) and relatively few were in use. Consequently, it was difficult to observe their effects, and the writing about computerization was primarily speculative. For example, the concerns about computerized systems becoming efficient substitutes for human labor led to speculation about mass unemployment, radically reduced work weeks, and the "problem" of how millions of people would be able to manage huge amounts of leisure time. From today's perspective, in which computer systems have become ubiquitous and professional work­ weeks seem to have expanded, these speculations may seem quaint. ln the late 1960s and early 1970s, some social scientists began empirical observational studies of the consequences of computerization inside organ­ izations. During the 1970s and 1980s, this body of research expanded to cover topics such as the relationship between computerization and changes in the ways in which work was organized, organizations were structured, distribu­ tions of power were altered, and so on. Most of the empirical social research was conducted within organizations because they were where the computers and the people who used them most intensively were located. We will discuss the findings of some of these studies in other chapters of this book. Even though these studies may seem to be dated and of limited relevance in the era of the Internet, they can help us understand some key aspects of con­ temporary issues. Here, it is sufficient to say that some important studies contradicted the prevailing expectations about the effects of computeriza­ tion that were seen in the books and articles written for ICT specialists, man­ agers, and the broader public. By the 1980s, research about the social aspects of ICTs was conducted by academics in a number of different fields, including information systems, information science, computer science, sociology, political science, educa­ tion, and communications. These researchers used a number of different labels for their specialty area, including "social analysis of computing," "social impacts of computing," "information systems research," and "behav­ ioral information systems research." For over thirty years, these research studies were published in the journals of the diverse disciplines, and were written in the researchers' distinctive disciplinary languages. As a conse­ quence, it was hard for many researchers, let alone nonspecialists, JCT pro­ fessionals, and JCT policy-analysts, to easily track relevant research. Urheberrechtlich geschutztes 'v1atenal 6 Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics In 1996, some participants in this research community agreed that the scattering of related research in a wide array of journals and the use of differ­ ent nomenclatures was impeding both the research and the abilities of "research consumers" to find important work. They decided that a common name for the field would be helpful. After significant deliberation, they selected "Social Informatics." (In Europe, the name informatics i~ widely used to refer to the disciplines that study ICTs, especially those of computer science, information systems, and information science.) Some members of this group held a workshop at Indiana University in 1997, and agreed upon a working definition: Social Informatics refers to the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses, and consequences ofICTs that takes into account their inter­ action with institutional and cultural contexts. Social Informatics analyses that are bounded within organizations, in which the primary participants are located v.iithin a few specific organizations, are referred to as organizational informatics. Many studies of the roles of computerization in shaping work and organizational structures fit within organizational informatics. This definition of Social Informatics helps to emphasize a central princi­ ple: ICTs do not exist in social or technological isolation. Their "cultural and institutional contexts" influence the ways in which they are developed, the kinds of workable configmations that are proposed, how they are imple­ mented and used, and the range of consequences that occur for organiza­ tions and other social groupings. Social Informatics is characterized by the problems being examined rather than by the theories or methods used in a research study. In this way, Social Informatics is similar to other fields that are defined by a problem area such as human-computer interaction, software engineering, urban studies, and gerontology. Social Informatics differs from fields such as operations research, where methodologies define their foci and boundaries. Social Informatics research is empirically focused and helps interpret the vexing issues people face when they work and live with systems in which advanced ICTs are important and increasingly pervasive components. Social Informatics research comprises normative, analytical, and critical orientations, although these approaches may be combined in any specific study. The normative orientation refers to research whose aim is to recom­ mend alternatives for professionals who design, implement, use, or make policy about ICTs. Normative research has an explicit goal of influencing practice by providing empirical evidence illustrating the varied outcomes that occur as people work with ICTs in a wide range of organizational and social contexts. For example, some early research (e.g., Lucas, 1975) showed that information systems were much more effectively utilized when the peo­ ple who worked with them routinely had some voice in their design. One approach, called participatory design, was built on this insight, and Urheberrechtlich geschulltes Material Introduction to Social Informatics 7 researchers tried to find different ways that users could more effectively influence the designs of systems that they used. Further, some of these stud­ ies found that it was important to change work practices and system designs together, rather than to adapt work practices to ICTs that were imposed in workplaces. The recommendations from this body of research are rather direct: ICT specialists and managers should not impose ICTs on workers without involving them in shaping the new ICTs and the redesign of their work practices. These recommendations differ substantially from the strate­ gies of some business reforms of the early 1990s, such as Business Process Reengineering (BPR), whose advocates preferred that ICTs and work be designed by people who were not invested in the workplaces that were being changed. Social Informatics researchers blame some of the failures of BPR on an ideology that undervalues workers' knowledge about their work. The analytical orientation refers to studies that develop theories about ICTs in institutional and cultural contexts, or to empirical studies that are organized to contribute to such theorizing. Analytical research develops con­ cepts and theories to help generalize from an understanding of ICT use in a few particular settings to other ICTs and their uses in other settings. For example, one line of analysis examines specific ICTs as embedded in a larger web of social and technical relationships that extend outside the immediate workplace (or social setting) where the ICTs are used (Kling, 1993; Kling & Scacchi, 1982). This line of analysis indicates that complex lCTs may be work­ able where technical support is available "in the environment." Thus, public schools in university towns may be able to use more complex ICTs when technically skilled undergraduates provide technical support through part­ time jobs or independent study courses. The same ICTs may prove unwork­ able for public schools in cities where inexpensive technical talent is unavailable. The analytical approach, in this case, examines the way that the social milieu is organized to provide resources for training, consulting, and maintaining ICis, rather than simply the technical simplicity/complexity of the JCT in social isolation. The critical orientation refers to examining ICTs from perspectives that do not automatically and uncritically accept the goals and beliefs of the groups that commission, design, or implement specific ICTs. The critical orientation is possibly the most novel (Agre & Schuler, 1997; Schultze & Leidner, 2002). It encourages information professionals and researchers to examine ICTs from multiple perspectives (such as those of the various people who use them in different contexts, as well as those of the people who pay for, design, imple­ ment, or maintain them) and to examine possible failure modes and service losses, as well as ideal or routine ICT operations. The critical orientation is exemplified by the case of some lawyers who wanted to develop expert systems that would completely automate the task Urheberrechtlich geschutztes Material 8 Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics of coding documents used as evidence in civil litigation. Social Wormatician Lucy Suchman (1996) examined the work of clerks who carried out this cod­ ing work and learned that it often required